The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.

In an introductory post on this forum, our new member Nobalai claims to have (secondhand) knowledge of two alleged 9/11 victims. One of them would be one "Judy Laroque" (a supposed passenger of "Flight 11") - which our 'veteran' forum members may remember from years back.

The first question I'd have for Nobalai would be: what do you mean by "this one was claimed" ? Was it claimed by your dad - or by anyone else? If it was your dad who told you about her, why not just say so?

Anyways, please know that the woman who claims to be Judy Laroque's daughter, namely Carie Lemack, is a co-founder of the very "Families of 9/11" organization (among a long list of other 'career achievements')...

"CARIE LEMACK" holding picture of purported mother "JUDY LAROQUE".

Here's from the CFR website (yes, the Council of Foreign Relations) :

"Carie remains focused on working with government, private sector and nonprofit organizations to improve the nation’s safety and security. She initiates and implements forward-thinking projects on critical homeland security issues, such as the prevention of nuclear terrorism and improved aviation security."http://www.cfr.org/staff/b15504

Yup. Young Carie Lemack is into nuclear terrorism prevention - and improved aviation security. Hey, of course she must be - her mother died on 9/11, damned - nothing to see here, move on!

simonshack wrote:The first question I'd have for Nobalai would be: what do you mean by "this one was claimed" ? Was it claimed by your dad - or by anyone else? If it was your dad who told you about her, why not just say so?

Of course I'll clarify. So I've been talking to my dad quite a bit about 9/11 lately. His position is that he admits there are some strange occurrences that happened that day (WTC7 and pentagon) but fails to dig deeper and admit that there is a large rabbit hole in our midst. For instance, he's holding onto the idea that superficial damage to the exterior and fire was able to cause a global collapse of WTC7 with 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration. To restate from the other thread (which might be better placed in this one,) I understand it might be more difficult for him since he's under the impression one of his childhood friends ("Larry Sumaya," whom he lost contact since!) died in the towers (I've yet to follow up on contacting his family as this forum logically asked of me)

So I've mentioned to my father that I can personally prove abhorrent video and image evidence that is clearly faked, especially some of the plane footage. I showed him and broke down some examples found here, alongside other one's I personally broke down. His response is that there must have been so many witnesses (*cough* shills) that saw the plane hit the towers, and that "a few rotten eggs don't spoil the bunch." Regardless, he began talking to a coworker of his (Let's call her Jane, which isn't her real name.) Jane was a 9/11 first responder (not NYPD or FDNY, just a government worker who happened to be in manhattan at the time) and volunteer(mentioned in the other thread) and was apparently close enough to see the massive dust clouds as either the first or building collapsed. Jane is also the one who claims that she knew a "JUDY LAROQUE" from school. Jane sent my dad an image in an SMS message who then forwarded it to me, which is at least some evidence (hard to verify authenticity from this single picture) that she has a picture of Judith Camilla Laroque. I'll ask where this picture came from. I initially thought it was from a yearbook, but when I sent it to my computer and saw it larger, it seems to be a memorial (?) I'm going to ask my dad to ask "Jane" if this is a yearbook or a memorial. If the image was taken post 2001, well damn, it's not as good evidence as I first thought.

EDIT: It's a picture from a memorial post 9/11 *sigh*

To a moderator: I looked up BBcode tags and the two resize options I found weren't working. Please feel free to resize appropriately.

The first thing I noticed when watching the video was the exact picture from the photo above. More weird is that the face (100% similar especially when comparing the bangs, and direction of hair in all locations) appears identical to the picture Simon posted above, with a seemingly difference back drop, in addition to it being cropped? Why is the backdrop light blue in one and then black in the one in this post? Is this indicative of a fake? Is there no other pictures? How did she look in 2001? Did she exist in 2001? If so, was she really on that plane from Boston? All I have, admittedly, is my dad's coworker's testimony that she went to school with Judith. One theory might be that this Carie Lemack character might be playing the role of Judith's daughter (when she really is just an actor.) I don't know.

Continuing analyzing that video, I noticed many, many smiles.

Some quotes/sections of interest:

"Terrorism really is a global issue."

She goes into detail where the pieces of her mom were supposedly found. One piece (foot) at ground zero. Another piece on top of ( ) Deutsch Bank "a couple blocks away", and continues:

"Moms body shattered when her plane hit the building. And that the debris that you see when you watch the videos of 9/11 and you think it looks like glass and pieces of the building ... thats actually pieces of my mom and so many others bodies. That the ... the impact shattered them and they just kept on going. They still find body parts at ground zero"

7 years later they were still finding body parts? Why is she rambling about this to the board of nuclear and biological terrorism threats? It's rather interesting how she plugs the 9/11 (collision) videos. Now, I surely didn't see any "glass and pieces" or body parts fly "blocks away" on the 25 clips I saw of the 'collision.' I wanna see the videos she was looking at! Anyway, It really sounds like she's either looking for pity/empathy(?) in order to manipulate the boards decision, or it's a pure agenda filled script to manipulate the board's decision. I'm not too great at detecting acting (only obvious clues) so I'm really not sure. There are certain sections where it seems scripted but it's only a gut feeling.

Overall, I must admit the interview of Carie Lemack is a real turn off, mostly since the policies she's advocating and the world view she has is completely antithesis to my own. There's also a gut feeling I have of coercive political activism through grisly stories (perhaps fraudulent,) general acting and off-the-point banter.

I hope you all understand I was presented with these two identities by my father, and I'm doing what I think is honest work to verify their authenticity, not to de-rail any theory presented on this site. That being said, I'm not immediately going to dismiss either of these claimed identities and their deaths on 9/11 until I personally dig further.

Most importantlyI'm planning a phone call interview with a relative of Larry Sumaya, and I would love to get the CluesForum members suggestions on exactly what to ask, and (more difficult) what evidence they might present to prove his existence and death in the towers. One part of me figures I need to be pretty strategic with the questioning since I don't want to anger the interviewee, just get out as much valuable information as possible. Another part of me thinks that by angering them (saying that people think your account is false and have actually brought up some interesting issues with death certificates and memorials etc, ) it might get them to personally come to CluesForum, make an account and start a deluge of evidence which we could evaluate, but this sounds risky.

Most importantlyI'm planning a phone call interview with a relative of Larry Sumaya, and I would love to get the CluesForum members suggestions on exactly what to ask, and (more difficult) what evidence they might present to prove his existence and death in the towers. One part of me figures I need to be pretty strategic with the questioning since I don't want to anger the interviewee, just get out as much valuable information as possible. Another part of me thinks that by angering them (saying that people think your account is false and have actually brought up some interesting issues with death certificates and memorials etc, ) it might get them to personally come to CluesForum, make an account and start a deluge of evidence which we could evaluate, but this sounds risky.

Here is the trouble with such an endeavor in my opinion. The 9/11 perps have no doubt known about the Vicsim Report and the subsequent research for over 6 years now. At the beginning I'm sure they had to make a decision to either feign outrage over it or do everything possible to ignore and suppress it. It's clear they went with the latter of those options since the former would only have drawn unwanted attention to the horrendous images and the obvious fraud.

The Vicsim explanation to the 9/11 scam would have been blown to bits long ago (by an overwhelming flood of evidence) if the alleged deaths had been real. All it would have taken is a single relative or friend of a 9/11 victim to hear about or come across this research for the damn to break open.

The subsequent network of outrage and readily available evidence would have crushed this site. Such a response would be quite organic, natural, and indeed effective. NOTE: Obviously the existence of genuine victims would not have allowed for any of the points, questions, and evidence laid out in the Vicsim Report.

And let's be clear about something else here. The perps have plenty of resources to mount such an effort of feigned indignation, but they cannot afford to go there. Any effort that might draw attention to this research is far too risky and would almost certainly backfire.

Now back to your efforts in reaching out to a family member of Mr. Sim... I mean Sumaya. Ask him or her what they have to prove he was real. See how creative he can be. But the main thing is to emphasize that we here at cluesforum are claiming he and the other 9/11 victims were fabricated entities designed to fool the world into thinking that people were killed by terrorists. Ask him to spread that message far and wide to the network of suffering families. That is not a risky thing to do.

As I stated above, they CANNOT afford to make a stink over this. Those images and memorials are absolutely indefensible in every way. Moreover, how can they justify just now raising hell over it after over 6 years? That is a laughable proposition to be sure.

Try to imagine how you would react if you were confronted with the suspicion that your dead relative never existed. If it were me, the evidence I would bring would be overwhelming and it would be overkill. Additionally I would be asking my deceased loved one's closest friends for copies of their pictures, videos, and mementos (just to pile it on). Of course I would explain to them that a group of researchers claim he was merely a Sim as part of a sick government scam, and that he never existed, let alone died. That might be sufficient motivation for people to come up with some evidence.

Naturally I would send this information (and my expressed outrage) to all the 9/11 survivors to make sure they and all their friends are equally pissed off and respond with forceful enthusiasm. If only ONE person made such an effort, how long would it take for the whole 9/11 victim support community to know about it? A day or two perhaps?

So, if you are curious then please go ahead and explore. But nobody here is worried. It doesn't threaten this research at all. We all have to go through our own process of researching and reaching conclusions.

SacredCowSlayer wrote:Additionally I would be asking my deceased loved one's closest friends for copies of their pictures, videos, and mementos (just to pile it on).

There is always a distinct lack of photos for these "victims" and Larry fits that mould - there are only 3 photos of him that I can find.

On his Marsh McLennan memorial is the following:

memorial.mmc.com/S/larry-sumaya.html

Larry is my brother-in-law. I had the great pleasure of spending time with him throughout the years, specifically at family gatherings. Peter D. Passacantando, Family Sep 6 2006 12:46PM

Red flag number 1 is "Larry is my brother-in-law" indicating that Larry was alive in 2006. No-one who has lost anyone would refer to a dead relative in the present tense. Red flag number 2 is that Larry's sister, the wife of Peter Passacantando, doesn't leave a message.

Larry Sumaya's sister is, allegedly, Marivel Sumaya Passacantando and she and her husband live in Pennsylvania. Was Larry at her wedding and if so, where are the photos? Is one of the only three pictures shown of Larry taken at Marivel's wedding, or at some other wedding? (He was unmarried so it's not his wedding.) If so, there should be at least half a dozen other photos of him at that wedding.

If Marivel is still working at the above business she can be contacted at that address and asked for family photos of her brother "to pad out the online memorials" to him. There should be hundreds of family gathering photos, Larry on the "ski slopes", Larry at weddings, Larry with his nephews and nieces, Larry at work events, Larry on the golf course etc. He is also supposed to have owned an SUV. A photo with Larry in his SUV would be good evidence of his existence as that would match a comment made on his memorial page (plus there's the belief that if anyone could have escaped he could have):

I did know Larry and I miss him terribly. He was one of those rare genuinely nice people. I met Larry during my first week at Marsh. He just popped his head into my cubicle and asked if I wanted to go to lunch. Just like that. I had only been briefly introduced to him that week and was surprised he even asked. That first week after 9/11 I was waiting and hoping for a phone call from him either telling me how he was away on this great vacation or how he narrowly escaped. If anyone could have gotten out it would have been Larry. He was so fit, I imagine he could have run down all 96 flights. He was always talking to me about running and his ski trips, nights out in the city. I told him I envied him because he seemed to live life to the fullest. He just knew how to talk to people and make them feel comfortable. I will never forget how proud he was over his negotiations for his SUV. Not a day goes by that I don't think about Larry. My heart goes out to his family who must miss him dearly. He was really a great guy. Janine Bland, Colleague Sep 12 2002 10:29AM

There are also other family members who fail to leave memorial messages and who only appear, very briefly, in the press.

"He was always smiling, very outgoing," said his sister Charito LeBlanc. Mrs. LeBlanc and her husband, Joseph, miss him the most on Sundays, because that was the day Mr. Sumaya would spend time at their home near his in Staten Island, watching sports, smoking a cigar in the backyard, firing up the barbecue.

Some photos of Larry with Charito and her husband in the backyard would be good evidence that the above is true, but I suspect there are no photos of these events.

Here is the only quote I can find by Marivel about her brother's death.

"As soon as they mentioned my brother's name, I simply broke down," said Marivel Passacantando of Pennsylvania, sister of World Trade Center Filipino-American victim Hilario "Larry" Sumaya. "I just know he's at peace with my father and grandfather."

Has your father mentioned Larry's sisters or his brother? Does he remember Marivel, Charito, Larry's brother Rey or any other Sumaya family members or does he only remember Larry? Surely, if he knew Larry then he must have known Larry's siblings as well? I'm sorry to have to ask this but people do not exist in a vacuum. When I recall people I used to know when I was a kid, I tend to remember their siblings as well

SacredCowSlayer wrote: The Vicsim explanation to the 9/11 scam would have been blown to bits long ago (by an overwhelming flood of evidence) if the alleged deaths had been real. All it would have taken is a single relative or friend of a 9/11 victim to hear about or come across this research for the damn to break open.

For quite a while I've been researching general conspiracy; this board and the theory of vicsims wasn't entirely easy to come by. Is it a fair assumption that supposed families of victims of 9/11 are going to know about this theory? How isolated an environment is the internet? It's my opinion that the internet is more "seek and you shall find" rather than this guarantee that families are going to 100% run into this theory. Even if they did, supposing outrage as the only outcome isn't always going to be the case. Using my best empathy, I can see ignoring it being a fair response as well. Along the lines of " I won't even give them a second of my time" since after all, they don't really benefit from confirming their relative died. Only the people who don't believe gain something (more information.)

SacredCowSlayer wrote: Now back to your efforts in reaching out to a family member of Mr. Sim... I mean Sumaya.

Lol, this is pretty damn funny ... not the best name, huh?

SacredCowSlayer wrote: As I stated above, they CANNOT afford to make a stink over this. Those images and memorials are absolutely indefensible in every way. Moreover, how can they justify just now raising hell over it after over 6 years? That is a laughable proposition to be sure.

Your whole post is a fair analysis. I hope you recognize that I was getting deep into taking the theory of simulated victims seriously for all these reasons, but given that my hometown is NYC, it was bound to be more difficult to escape the "I knew someone" issue. I spoke to my dad about this and was immediately told of Sumaya. (I have vague recollection of his name being mentioned years back when I was younger as well.) So I ask you, what if this is the moment of truth? What if I can get Sumaya and other families to dump pictures? Further below, I'll ask more about the vicsim theory's falsifiability condition(s). But it seems that even if this forum were to receive a mass amount of pictures, it would resort to questioning why it took so long? I admit this is reasonable. It's kind of interesting/sad that supposing this vicsim theory is wrong, it's going to be extraordinarily tough to dig themselves out the ditch (that they dug since no one has 'sufficiently' stepped up yet.)

Apache wrote: Has your father mentioned Larry's sisters or his brother? Does he remember Marivel, Charito, Larry's brother Rey or any other Sumaya family members or does he only remember Larry? Surely, if he knew Larry then he must have known Larry's siblings as well? I'm sorry to have to ask this but people do not exist in a vacuum. When I recall people I used to know when I was a kid, I tend to remember their siblings as well

Ah, so I asked my Dad permission to contact Sumaya's relatives (I thought it would be nice to ask him first) and he replied via text "You may. By email? Only rey will remember me. Girls were too young and father passed away."

So it seems there is some verification of story lines here. Of note is that based on his, my father only knew him for a smaller window of time than he made it out to seem if the girls were able to grow up from toddlers?

Anyway, both of your skepticism of lacking pictures (or pictures that corroborate with memorials) seems be a great place to start if I were to contact a relative (Rey might be the best bet since he might remember my father.) I figure simply asking for as many pictures as possible might be a fair thing to ask ("to pad out the online memorials" )

SacredCowSlayer wrote: Ask him or her what they have to prove he was real. See how creative he can be. But the main thing is to emphasize that we here at cluesforum are claiming he and the other 9/11 victims were fabricated entities designed to fool the world into thinking that people were killed by terrorists. Ask him to spread that message far and wide to the network of suffering families. That is not a risky thing to do.

Overall, this seems very promising to push this thing further into either credibility or incredibility, since I am more interested in honesty. Although if anyone else wants to chime in and prefer I start with another (less up front) approach, feel free to suggest it.

I'll wrap up by asking this forum the condition(s) with which the theory (that all the victims were really vicsims) is falsifiable? With respect to family outreach? With respect to physical evidence/certificates? I'm leaning towards it all being potentially dismissible depending on one's perspective (paid actors, forged documents.) And even if Larry is proved to have died in the towers, which I understand pictures won't be proof positive, this doesn't even begin to disprove the other shoddy, nebulous memorials and 'identified victims'. I'm one to believe that the death toll could easily have been padded, and that as little as a few hundred (or less?) were unable to make it out of the tower (those above the explosions?)

But I'll ask what is the condition with which the theory (that all the victims were really vicsims) is falsifiable?

An organic and authentic uprising of outrage and indignation years ago would have (if there had been real victims) refuted the VicSim Report and obliterated this topic.

Asking for evidence now is kind of like asking the police to go get more evidence of the crime long after they have been roundly exposed for framing the defendant in every way imaginable.

You might ask this "person" whether Mr. SIMaya had a mole immediately adjacent to his right nostril.The two images don't match up in that regard.

As a side note I would just like to say that there is an awful lot of ridiculous talk about this SIM's smile, considering how jacked up his teeth look in the above "photos". You may also ask whether Marsh McClennan had a dental plan for their managers.

Last edited by SacredCowSlayer on January 14th, 2016, 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nobalai wrote: I'm one to believe that the death toll could easily have been padded, and that as little as a few hundred (or less?) were unable to make it out of the tower (those above the explosions?)

Nobalai,

The towers were obviously empty. What the heck are you on about? Please stop offending our intelligence - or else, get the fuck out of here. Thanks.

It should now be obvious to a little child that ALL the supposed "Islamic terror attacks" sold by the media in the last decades are ALL fake. If you still believe people die in these entirely staged events, there is nothing more Cluesforum can do for you that it hasn't already done. It is really getting tiresome to even discuss about the fact that no one died on 9/11. For anyone to believe that "some people must have died" on that day ('due to the massive scale of the event') is just plain silly. Enough is enough.

Nobalai wrote:I'll wrap up by asking this forum the condition(s) with which the theory (that all the victims were really vicsims) is falsifiable?

Nobalai this is a place for honest people to put up evidence for the neutral researcher. Seeing as it is up to each individual researcher to weigh up the evidence for themselves there can't really be any such conditions.

So, for instance, a neutral researcher can read up the truly enormous amount of research done by this forum, they can verify such research themselves* and then compare that with your story i.e. "My Daddy once received an SMS, with a memorial picture in it, from someone not called Jane... allegedly".

As to what each reader decides based upon such evidence I cannot say.

What I will say is that we do not suffer fools or liars here so I strongly suggest that rather than giving us a running commentary on your text messaging life you instead acquire some actual sodding evidence & post it.

Nobalai wrote:I'll wrap up by asking this forum the condition(s) with which the theory (that all the victims were really vicsims) is falsifiable?

Remember that the theory of the perpetrators (that people died as a result of airplanes striking the towers) has already been debunked by the voluminous work done here at Clues Forum. You are turning this whole thing upside down by asking us for conditions under which "the theory (that all the victims were really vicsims) is falsifiable". There is nothing further to prove as one counterexample is sufficient to nail the perpetrators and their lies. Clues Forum has way more than one counterexample. Please read before you post your long tedious posts.

Nobalai (and any future posters); if you think you may have info of sorts to establish that a vicsim was a real person, it's best to contact your sources, research memorial sites, company/ corporate ex employees, past alumni of schools colleges etc (plus the dodgy organisations Carie Lemack is involved with).

Then post your findings.

Instead of coming on here and saying "my Daddy went to school with someone who died in the towers, and worked with someone who knew someone".

Then if you hit a blank wall with your research don't bother posting, unless you can add value to what's already here.

It appears my "strong suggestion" went unheeded. I've tidied up this thread a little & suspended Nobalai's account for two weeks. This will give him the time to conduct his own independent research & then, hopefully, return with something actually useful.

resolution » January 1st, 2013, 6:35 am wrote:I've just read the entire vicsims report for the first time having previously relied on information from other videos and this forum. Given the amount of progress made in the past 3 years, I wonder whether it might be an opportune time for a re-write with greater emphasis on more obvious cases of photoshopping?

I was just digging through this large thread and came across this comment. It's not a bad idea. We probably should try to explain to people the differences between:

2. actors in digital make up, and what augmented reality technology exists (e.g.; 3D CGI, putting on borrowed digital faces both of real and unreal origin, cryptographic software to mask features and to prevent identification of compression, etc.)

3. actors in physical make up, and what make up technology exists (e.g.; rubber masks, hands, fake hair, etc.), and recycled actors (in the probable case of "Michael Moore" and "Tanya Head" being played by the same person)

4. actors that underwent/undergo plastic surgery and/or are very public yet "deep cover", military hires, politicians and so forth

Since they probably use all of these techniques and they hilariously use every opportunity to claim that such obvious techniques would never be used (often because these techniques supposedly "wouldn't work", as if aiming a cocked gun at you and saying, "This is just a toy, I'm not even sure it has bullets!"), it's confusing for people to understand how a vicsim list could be propped up by living psychopathic liars. And it's worth explaining.

Essentially, the two first ones are what made 9/11 possible. Computers, CGI and new cryptography. They are newer derivatives of the fourth set that have always run the hoaxes throughout history — the primary actors and liars that use the rest of it for a pseudo-invisible "super class".

The fact that only a small minority of people on this world are awakened to the fourth category tells us that most people do not even conceive of a fifth level of lies, the people with the money and power and influence to motivate all the rest of it.

Every year, Cantor Fitzgerald and our affiliate, BGC Partners, in conjunction with the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund, commemorate our 658 friends and colleagues and 61 Eurobrokers employees who perished on September 11, 2001 by distributing 100% of our global revenues on Charity Day to the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund and dozens of charities around the world. Since its inception, Charity Day has raised approximately $125 million globally. Each anniversary is a poignant occasion for us. Charity Day is our way of turning a tragic day into one that is positive and uplifting by helping others.

Charity Day 2016 was held on Monday, September 12th. We raised approximately $12 million, and donated 100% of our global revenue to over 100 charities worldwide.

Check out the highlights from Cantor Fitzgerald Charity Day, GFI Charity Day, BGC Charity Day in NYC, and BGC Charity Day in London.Even Maria Sharapova falls prey to this sick joke,giving away her hard earned money through Sugapova,her candy company.Global ghosts attacking like black crows feasting on the carrion or VICTIMS(real people).Someday this is gonna end,not much mercy will be found.

"In September, I was able to participate for the first time in Cantor Fitzgerald Charity Day (the namesake company lost hundreds of employees in the terrorist attacks on 9/11). It was very rewarding to see how much money was raised that day, not only for the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund, but for other charities close to the hearts of all the attendees—including, for me, the Maria Sharapova Foundation."

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9pHKQIOFtEHere's a video of this year's charity day at BGC. (Uk arm of C/F & espeed)Depressing viewing seeing all those gullible self styled celebs.That Shaun Lynn the President of BGC with his agressive cockney accent comes across as the archetypal 'Essex Man'. I can just picture him in the pub with his mates waving a wad around saying "Loads a muney"He was fairly senior at C/F when 9/11 happened as seen in this article here.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/cantor-f ... 41839.html

Listing 10 Directors at the time of 9/11, only 2 happen to be at work on 9/11. (The rest were booked for a cancelled fishing trip) Douglas Gardner & Frederick Thomas Varacchi both of whom have been discussed on the forum. Both appointed August 31st 2000. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... download=0

This year was probably the most low key 9/11 anniversary thus far, and will probably continue until 2021.

But I see BGC, Cantor Fitzgerald's UK division still try & keep the official narrative alive with their annual creepy celebrity charity open day.So all the vile celebrities that still believe in the OCT turn up for their photo shoot. http://www.bgcpartners.com/charity-day/

The video below is the 2017 video from their web site.

Think it's time to hand out some annual SC Quisling awards to some of the above attendees. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quisling )The puke bucket award to Cheri Blair , & the how the fuck could you award ? to Ronnie Wood

And at the start of this other 2017 open day video, the cretinous narrator talks about Drones being flown around outside of the building, as part of the entertainment. Are they trying to subliminally say something ?

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80YkJ2IEoSs

Edit : The above Video's first comment.

9/11 was a CGI hoax, September clues and clues forum have proven this. So why are stealing money under the guise of charity?﻿

Is this picture even remotely believable? Pretending it was a real photo, this is the best shot they would share with the press for their momentous occasion?

On that day, Victor Saracini, 51, was the captain of United Flight 175, the airplane that hijackers directed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Inside that building, on the 84th floor, Patrick McGuire, 40, was working at Euro Brokers Inc.

So we have Victor Saracini, the captain of the non-existent Flight 175. His daughter Brielle Saracini works in the media (surprise!) for YES Network (according to the article). A quick google search, and it appears that Brielle is no stranger to the spotlight since 9/11. Here is a rather long and in-depth article about her and her relationship with Derek Jeter with pictures like this one:

And then we have this, in that same article above for Brielle and Jeter (it is the most frequently used picture for Victor Saracini). They can't be serious with this, right? That's the best photo they've got for this guy?

Just the run-of-the-mill 9/11 VicSim stories making the rounds again ...